FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: stokeman455 on February 20, 2019, 04:16:39 am
-
:bad: An ex. ISIS bride wants back into the USA after having a baby? They ought to charge her with something..
-
:bad: wow
-
I'm kind of on the fence about this one. Yes, she was very young when she left and made a life changing mistake. But I feel they need to vet her completely to make sure she has no ties or loyalties to ISIS at all before they allow her to come home.
-
Sorry about your luck. You made your bed and slept in it. Oh... and you were, in part, involved with terrorism and killing of innocents.
If this "person who was young and made a mistake" wants to come back to the U.S., she should be welcomed with open arms and given free housing for life at Guantanamo.
-
I'm sorry but someone who joins an enemy of the US (and the civilized world) should not be taken back with open arms. Guantánamo Bay sounds like a good place for her...
-
My opinion is they should leave her where she is and not let her back. And it is my understanding there is more than one of these women wanting back in the U.S. or the UK
-
:bad: An ex. ISIS bride wants back into the USA after having a baby? They ought to charge her with something..
They do not need to allow her back in to the US. She made her choice. I would not trust her.
-
My opinion is they should leave her where she is and not let her back. And it is my understanding there is more than one of these women wanting back in the U.S. or the UK
There was at least 2 that I sort of read about. I never bothered to read the entire story.
-
My opinion is they should leave her where she is and not let her back. And it is my understanding there is more than one of these women wanting back in the U.S. or the UK
There was at least 2 that I sort of read about. I never bothered to read the entire story.
I heard about two of them on the news last night. My initial thought is to not trust them at all. :-\
-
There are currently 3 girls that are trying to return to their countries after leaving to join ISIS -- UK, Canada, & USA -- it is an obviously scripted campaign
The one in the UK was striped of her citizenship. She is already on her 3rd ISIS husband at age 19. She sees nothing of chopping off heads as it is permitted in her religion. The 3 women all fully embrace the ISIS way of life until ISIS stronghold had fallen & they wound up in refugee camps.... no more slaves, no more free stuff stolen by their men.... now they want to go back & collect more free stuff from the countries they willingly left behind.
All of them should be charged with treason as they left their country to join who their country was fighting against.... traitors.
-
I am sorry, but I don't think she should be allowed to come back, she made her choice, now has a baby and the father will want to follow as usual. that is part of what is wrong in our country . Letting in family. Now this,. I don't think I would trust her. But we all know the muslim that was elected into the House will go to bat for her.
-
If she's allowed to come back, she should be tried for treason.
-
I think that, if she went willingly and by her own choice, the rules for a denial of readmission are spelled out quite clearly. It appears she had a somewhat active role in Isis: chose to travel to Syria as a college student in order to join Isis, married three freedom fighters, posted tweets calling for the killing of Americans and is a noted propagandist for Isis. She posted anti-American messages as recently as two thousand and fifteen calling for people to rent trucks and spill blood. The girl's father is suing the Trump administration for attempting to rescind her United States citizenship. She has no passport, visa, right to a passport and her citizenship is questionable due to her father's diplomatic status when she was born. Attorneys have stated that because she was born in America she is automatically granted citizenship while others say that this citizenship is null and void given her affiliation with an anti-American terrorist group. As the power of Isis diminishes we will, most likely, see more attempts to rejoin America.
-
I agree, she should not be allowed back. Sorry it didn't work out for you, but you made your bed now lay in it. Yes, you were young but old enough to know right from wrong.
-
I think that, if she went willingly and by her own choice, the rules for a denial of readmission are spelled out quite clearly. It appears she had a somewhat active role in Isis: chose to travel to Syria as a college student in order to join Isis, married three freedom fighters, posted tweets calling for the killing of Americans and is a noted propagandist for Isis. She posted anti-American messages as recently as two thousand and fifteen calling for people to rent trucks and spill blood. The girl's father is suing the Trump administration for attempting to rescind her United States citizenship. She has no passport, visa, right to a passport and her citizenship is questionable due to her father's diplomatic status when she was born. Attorneys have stated that because she was born in America she is automatically granted citizenship while others say that this citizenship is null and void given her affiliation with an anti-American terrorist group. As the power of Isis diminishes we will, most likely, see more attempts to rejoin America.
Wait, you say she is not automatically an American just because she was born in the United States. I am curious, do you feel the same way about all the hispanics that are children of illegals who came across the border and popped them out? Do you consider them citizens? The baby not the parent who is illegal. Just curious.
-
I did not state that "she is not automatically an American just because she was born in the United States" but did state "Attorneys have stated that because she was born in America she is automatically granted citizenship" As is usual for me I do not really have an opinion one way or the other I just look at what ever facts are available and certainly do not focus on whether the issue is hispanic, Nigerian, Muslim, Swedish, LBGTQ, age related or in any way related to any unequal treatment for any human beings. The fourteenth amendment of United States Constitution states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. Given the stance taken by our constitution I would say that the country feels that anyone born on our soil is a a citizen.
-
I do not believe for one minute she should be allowed back into the U.S. and there is one wanting back into the UK. I think there is something rotten in Denmark as they say - why would ISIS let these women go?
-
The fourteenth amendment of United States Constitution states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. Given the stance taken by our constitution I would say that the country feels that anyone born on our soil is a a citizen.
I believe yours is a faulty reading of the Constitutional Amendment - one shared by many, so I'm not intentionally singling you out - but still faulty. This Amendment was meant to address the situation where we suddenly now had thousands of emancipated slaves otherwise without any citizenship status and intended to fix that by giving U.S. citizenship to these freed slaves (who were born in the U.S. and many of whose families had been here for several generations - granted several generations as slaves, but this was still the only home they knew). They were born on U.S. soil and were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S./State of birth/residence.
The much more recent argument to apply this to all people who happen to 'exit the womb' while on U.S. soil is not what the Amendment was geared toward and is a faulty interpretation. We can't unwind the clock, but it was never meant to encourage a pregnant foreigner to keep her unborn child unborn until she had at least one foot across the border into the U.S.
-
What are the odds that they're just gonna let her leave without any type of repercussions? Or is it because she's pregnant.
-
shouldn't let her back in she may be playing us and read7 for an attack who knows.Isis does seem to be taken care of which is good.
-
She should not be allowed back. How do we know what her future plans are? She has her "sob" story but who knows what she is capable of.
-
She already made her choice.
-
Nope. She's an adult she made her bed.
-
I did not state that "she is not automatically an American just because she was born in the United States" but did state "Attorneys have stated that because she was born in America she is automatically granted citizenship" As is usual for me I do not really have an opinion one way or the other I just look at what ever facts are available and certainly do not focus on whether the issue is hispanic, Nigerian, Muslim, Swedish, LBGTQ, age related or in any way related to any unequal treatment for any human beings. The fourteenth amendment of United States Constitution states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. Given the stance taken by our constitution I would say that the country feels that anyone born on our soil is a a citizen.
Actually, I don't think that the "country" feels that way. A lot of people do not feel the kids born to illegals should be granted citizenship. Hard to get an exact count because the polls are all biased. Maybe ask the question on the US census that will happen next year. lol
-
The fourteenth amendment of United States Constitution states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. Given the stance taken by our constitution I would say that the country feels that anyone born on our soil is a a citizen.
I believe yours is a faulty reading of the Constitutional Amendment - one shared by many, so I'm not intentionally singling you out - but still faulty. This Amendment was meant to address the situation where we suddenly now had thousands of emancipated slaves otherwise without any citizenship status and intended to fix that by giving U.S. citizenship to these freed slaves (who were born in the U.S. and many of whose families had been here for several generations - granted several generations as slaves, but this was still the only home they knew). They were born on U.S. soil and were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S./State of birth/residence.
The much more recent argument to apply this to all people who happen to 'exit the womb' while on U.S. soil is not what the Amendment was geared toward and is a faulty interpretation. We can't unwind the clock, but it was never meant to encourage a pregnant foreigner to keep her unborn child unborn until she had at least one foot across the border into the U.S.
But technically the illegals coming here and popping out babies - their children are US citizens. The completely fit the bill of the amendment. Maybe that needs to be changed. But I say good luck with it ever happening. Too many bleeding heart liberals who are too stupid to see what is happening in this country. Or they are just so full of hate for the Republican party they will vote for a democrat no matter what their stance just so they try to keep the Republicans out of office.
People need to quit focusing so much on party lines and look at what the person stands for. If the person is FOR killing babies then you do not vote for them. Does not matter which side of the political fence they are standing.
-
I would not trust her. I mean if Trump refuses people to cross the boarder from Mexico believing they are all gang members or prostitutes (which is certainly false and not proven if there even was any gang members among the crowd that wanted to come into the US) then why should a known member of a terrorist organization be allowed in? I mean we are sending back illegals and people with expired green cards who weren't terrorists why the heck should we let a terrorist back in?
-
sorry we don't need another terrorist. buh bye
-
You should be shot for treason!
-
There are currently 3 girls that are trying to return to their countries after leaving to join ISIS -- UK, Canada, & USA -- it is an obviously scripted campaign
The one in the UK was striped of her citizenship. She is already on her 3rd ISIS husband at age 19. She sees nothing of chopping off heads as it is permitted in her religion. The 3 women all fully embrace the ISIS way of life until ISIS stronghold had fallen & they wound up in refugee camps.... no more slaves, no more free stuff stolen by their men.... now they want to go back & collect more free stuff from the countries they willingly left behind.
All of them should be charged with treason as they left their country to join who their country was fighting against.... traitors.
I have read and heard about the girls from USA and Britain, but not the other one. However, I do not support them coming back to their native countries. Frankly, the girl needs to be tried for treason and as a taxpayer I don't want to pay for some lengthy trial, appeal, or jail time. I usually have empathy for people, but in these instances there needs to be consequences for such a decision whether made while someone is young or not!
-
But technically the illegals coming here and popping out babies - their children are US citizens. The completely fit the bill of the amendment. Maybe that needs to be changed. But I say good luck with it ever happening.
We are arguing for the same result, but I respectfully disagree that they "fit the bill of the amendment" They fit one side's interpretation of the language (or better stated their misinterpretation). This article explains it much more eloquently than I am able to: Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment (https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/30/birthright-citizenship-a-fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-14th-amendment/)
But you are correct that the only real way to definitively fix it is to clarify the language and that is never going to happen -- especially when so many people now believe that it absolutely was meant to make all babies popped out in the U.S. citizens of the U.S. Can you imagine the outcry if someone in 2019 tried to make such a correction of language written in 1868 to conform with the actual intentions of the 1868 drafters? The media would have a field day with that one!
-
That is really awful. Is that even possible to get back into the US? Why did she leave initially?